Get a presentation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that responses can be hundreds of kilobytes, advises trimming with a fields mask, and explains the EMU unit for pageSize. These are useful behavioral warnings that an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the return value first, then the key content, then the warning and usage tip. Every sentence serves a purpose and no filler or repetition exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema present, the description carries the full burden of explaining return shape and behavior. It covers the main response components, units, size risks, and how to constrain the response. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why fields matters ('full deck is often hundreds of kilobytes'), giving a richer example of a fields mask than the schema does, and situating fields as the trimming mechanism when raw detail is desired.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's behavior: it returns the raw presentation JSON, and enumerates the key resources inside it (slides, layouts, masters, notesMaster, pageSize, revisionId). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_slides and get_page by emphasizing 'raw' and 'every page element'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance: prefer list_slides for an inventory, and use this tool with a fields mask when raw detail is needed. This names the alternative and provides a concrete condition for choosing this tool over it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.